jhinkey wrote:
Perhaps it's lack of resources, perhaps it's lack of leadership, but they have not been on the leading edge of innovation lately (except perhaps in the sensor area).

I shoot Canon, but saw this thread on the main page and just had to respond.
You should read some of the threads on the Canon Forum - that should amuse you.
Most of it centers around how far ahead and innovative Nikon is and how far behind Canon continues to trail behind and are doomed to fail in the near future.

From the D1... through the D3... things were clear and reasonably predictable ... but in the last few years, Nikon seems to be using the shotgun approach.

Disclaimer: I think the D300, D700 and D800 are lower-end pro bodies, but still pro bodies but for the sack of easy conversation and categorization, I'll call them "Prosumer"

High Res Pro Body
D1x / D2x / D3x / no D4x

Speed Pro Body
D1h / D2h / D3 / D4 okay, some consistency here

"Prosumer" Body DX body
D100 / D200 / D300 / no D400

And of course with the advent of FX

"Prosumer" FX speed body
NA / NA / D700 / no D800h

"Prosumer" FX High Res Body
NA / NA / not offered / D800

Consumer FX body
NA / NA / NA / D600

Once might say that the D800 is the D400 and the D700 updates, but is that what customers want? FX is a new format, and while it may work great for pros and prosumers with $, abandoning pro DX hurts a lot of customers. And even if DX is now consumer only, why not follow the high/low slow/fast of the pro bodies. In other words,

D700 / D700x followed up by D800h / D800

And then where doe the DF fit in? It seems to me if you are going retro to bring in legacy glass, then go retro in features too ... something simple and new and not in the midst of all the rest of the confusion.

From the D1... series to the D3... series, there was a clear progression ... since then, Nikon has been sending lots of mixed messages. It would have been smarter to follow the successes of the past up with updates and then add new ideas later. For instance

surf monkey wrote:
I shoot Canon, but saw this thread on the main page and just had to respond.
You should read some of the threads on the Canon Forum - that should amuse you.
Most of it centers around how far ahead and innovative Nikon is and how far behind Canon continues to trail behind and are doomed to fail in the near future.

Perhaps true, but as a m43 owner that group has been really innovating on the body and lens sides of the equation while playing catch-up on the sensor front.
Sony has been trying all sorts of things playing catch-up in FX land.

Now who's been making money is a whole other question.

I think in 5-10 years the camera manufacturer landscape may be quite different.

When I was shooting a ton and making enough shooting to pay for my gear I went through pretty much every Nikon body and lens out there. It's great gear for getting the job done. I think the big frustration is that most of us are looking for the next leap in the gear. When Nikon rolled out the D3/D700 they were game changers especially the D3 for sports shooting. The high resolution D800 was a leap forward as well.

The camera makers have lost the point and shoot market to the iPhone and now they are all scrambling for market share and the next "big thing" seems to be the demand for a smaller, lighter, setup with full frame and the lenses that match the system. Having a Nikon DF and popping a 24-70 on defeats the purpose of the camera. Probably a few years away from having it all in a small setup but in the meantime you can do what I did an experience and "pure photography" right now!! Buy a FUji X100 slip it in your pocket and head out the door. You'll be amazed at how quickly you can forget about the DSLR and enjoy just having a camera with you again while you wait for the next leap forward in gear.

CGrindahl wrote:
Steve Jobs made Apple successful during his second incarnation in part by simplifying the product line, then offering some distinctive products that were marketed with great ingenuity. I'm afraid the world of photography is changing so radically at the moment that Nikon and its competitors are scrambling to find a niche in a world unlike any we've seen before… cell phones have become the preferred method for taking both photos and videos. I recall when my friend George who is a professional photographer showed me two landscape shots he'd taken earlier in the day, one with his D700 and one with his iPhone. I was pretty amazed at how well the iPhone did. George bought a D800 and continues to ramble through wilderness areas with his Gitzo tripod and 14-24 lens but not many folks want to spend that kind of money to pursue that kind of photography.

Those of us hanging out on this board love our DSLR and film cameras and fully expect the companies that produce them will continue to service our needs. But lets face it, we're a dying breed and companies that rely on us are dying companies. Nikon may be wandering about in its product development but my guess is those bean counters have a better idea of what will keep the company afloat than will the unhappy folks posting on this thread. Unlike Canon who has multiple profit centers on its balance sheet, Nikon is quite limited in what it offers. And they're competing with Sony who is a huge company with the resources both technically and financially to venture into new territory. The sensor Nikon is using in its D600, D800 come from Sony. Sony is using them in mirror less cameras at a much reduced price. Does taking a step back into yesteryear help them, whether with release of the Df or the D400 Andre is championing solve their problems? I doubt it. We're in the midst of growing pains and for those of us committed to legacy approaches to photography, the experience is not particularly enjoyable. I hope Nikon finds a way. Apple did, but it didn't come from new computers, but rather from a music box and telephone. Perhaps Nikon needs to fine a new line of work… ...Show more →

We should first of all not considering all people with a camera (DSLR, system camera, mobile, ...) as photographers as such. There are the happy snappers, capturing events happening during their working and leisure days and that is fine, they are not interested in composition, sharpness, bokeh, ... It is merely the moment they are interested in.
Than you have the photographers, people going out there with a mission. Could be street photography, wildlife, sports, ... just name it. They have the will to stay put on a certain spot for capuring that moment, a picture that stands out in the hundereds of other lookalikes. These are the persons willing to invest in gear and time.
I think that is not so much different as 20 years ago. It is only marketing that Nikon, Canon, Sony, ... wants to see a DSLR in the hands of the masses so their sales figures show a year after year increase.
Simply put, the companies like Nikon, Canon, ... have grown too big and are spoiled by sales figures when digital photography took off but in the long run I am afraid they will have to shrink again and fall back on the P&S camera's for the masses and good DSLR's for the (hobby) photographer.
Just my 2 cents.

I am in the minority here but I think Nikon is doing an good job. Certainly not perfect. And I agree that it is occasionally hard to understand their strategy. But everyone here would have to admit that the newer cameras deliver awesome photos and advanced features at a reasonable price. The D4, the D3 series, D800's, D600/610, D7100, D7000. Not to mention the 5000 and 3000 series. They don't appeal to me but they do deliver. What great tools (toys) we have available. I know there is still a lot of demand for a D400. But I absolutely love my D600 and my D7000 before that. The D600 delivers a ton of bang for the buck. Yes, I would like to have the 51 point auto focus system. But it hasn't crippled me from getting my shots and I am getting a terrifically high keeper rate. I'm happy.

Are people really that unhappy? I'm not---during the time I was a full-time photographer, I happily used Nikon N90s and F100 film cameras---I kept hearing from my other professional photo friends that I "needed" to upgrade to the Nikon pro models. I continued shooting the "lesser" bodies (bought the good glass) and was paid by happy customers. Now days I still do quite a bit of paid work and use two main cameras---a D300 and now also a D7100---I am very content with these bodies and still use some of the good glass I bought way back during film days. I've saved a ton of money, and still get the results I want.
As for the new "Retro" style digital body---I say if that's what you want , get it. We have an enormous range of choices these days---embrace it!

Interesting. I kept and still use the N90. Only autofocus body that I still have. I got rid of both F100 and the F4 and the F5 because there was something simple and unassuming about that plastic feeling N90 that was more that its spec sheet. Really capable camera.

I have a quick question. Does yours work in Aperture preferred with the newest lenses? My works ok in P mode and I can shift the aperture that way, but it will not let me control the aperture in A mode, which is strange, imho.

I think the problem is that what we knew, for most of 2Oth century, as the photo equipment industry, no longer exists. That industry was started by and populated by what I will call photocentric people It is now only a tiny pimple on the ass of a huge consumer electronics business. When Nikon looses enough money, they will find something else to make, or perish from this earth. They will be buried in the photo manufacturers grave yard: along
with Minolta, Yashica, Topcon and other former "giants". I agree that there is no future
for Nikon in the high end aps-c market, but that doesn't mean they won't go ahead and try anyway. I think it would only quicken their near certain demise. Sorry if some folks find this offensive. It's just an opinion. If you get upset, you've either had to much coffee or need to find something to love other than your camera.

Todd Warnke wrote:
As for DX, I'd bet it's gone. I think Nikon believes the same - I'd point to the lack of serious lenses as proof of that. Why is it gone? Because FX costs have dropped to the point that if you want the best quality you can go FX for not much more and if portability matters M4/3 is 95% as good at lower cost and lighter lenses.

A few years ago Nikon claimed that full frame was no good and had no future, primarily because they had no product to sell. Now DX is dead? I suspect that it will be around for a long time in the lower cost bodies. A larger sensor will never be as cheap to produce as a smaller sensor and even a small cost difference makes big difference at the lower end. The cost and size of the ubiquitous 18-55 or 18-xxx lenses vs. FX equivalents are also much less.

CGrindahl wrote:
I hope Nikon finds a way. Apple did, but it didn't come from new computers, but rather from a music box and telephone. Perhaps Nikon needs to fine a new line of work…

Hi Curtis. It's been awhile. Hope you are well. I enjoyed this post of yours. Very very true about Apple and the future will determine if Nikon stays around or fades away. I was interested in the new Df but since it has no manual focus screen, have not written off any interest in this Nikon, or any other for now. I will shoot my trusty FM2 until something else finds my fancy.

About Nikon's "new" line of work, it might be possible that 10 years from now Nikon is a totally different company. Look at Fujifilm. 20 years ago they derived all their profits from film and processing. Today, 1% of Fujifilm's revenue is from film. 1%! Even with digital cameras included, that makes up only around 10% of Fuji's business. Now they are an ENORMOUSLY diverse company making cosmetics, pharmaceutical drugs (anti cancer medicines of all things!), endoscopes, etc.

Fujifilm could close up their entire photography business and keep on going, no problem at all.

If Nikon can't stay in business making cameras, they need to transition their business into something new like Fujifilm did.

HauntedHat wrote:
APS-C was there because there was no way they could make FF sensors for a reasonable price back then, but then again, people needed equivalent lenses for the new field of view, that's why they don't just throw everything away and start making everything FF, because then people would be complaining on how cheated they feel, etc.

I see FX as clinging to the past. There is very, very little need for the expense of it. Ever since the invention of film (and enlargement printing rather than contacts) cameras and formats have been getting ever smaller. I shoot a number of different formats, from DX to 8x10. There's absolutely nothing "special" about 35mm/FX. I very much want a smaller camera, one that's easy to carry and has smaller lenses. I love my Leica IIIC! Leica got it right in 1942. The new APS-C cameras from Fuji etc. are the direction I'm heading.

I have to also agree on that Dx thing. And actually, none too soon enough I feel. It was a stop gap measure and a poorly fitted one.
Focus on one sensor size and one line of lenses would bring faster progress. Perhaps put Dx into point and shoots?

Two23 wrote:
I see FX as clinging to the past. There is very, very little need for the expense of it. Ever since the invention of film (and enlargement printing rather than contacts) cameras and formats have been getting ever smaller. I shoot a number of different formats, from DX to 8x10. There's absolutely nothing "special" about 35mm/FX. I very much want a smaller camera, one that's easy to carry and has smaller lenses. I love my Leica IIIC! Leica got it right in 1942. The new APS-C cameras from Fuji etc. are the direction I'm heading.

Kent in SD

Except the cost of FX is coming down and down and down.

Anything APS-C can do FX can do better, EXCEPT get smaller. If size is your #1 point, then APS-C or lower is what you want.

allstarimaging wrote:
Buy a FUji X100 slip it in your pocket and head out the door. You'll be amazed at how quickly you can forget about the DSLR and enjoy just having a camera with you again while you wait for the next leap forward in gear.

I think people would have been happy with a fairly easy formula: The same size as an FM2, D4 sensor, interchangeable screens. I like the look, the dials are nice and am digging the retro feel. But it's pretty big. Even if they offered this camera at the same price point but FM2 sizing a lot more people might be on board.

A mirrorless format would have been great but I think expecting too much at this point. The Sony vs Df comparisons will be flying around soon enough I'm sure.